Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Answer 1
Emergence has failed. The line of political parties do not accommodate for the diversity of people in the country; and this missalignment (voters on one side, political parties on the other) results in two types of errors: eligble voters being forced not to participate in an election, and or eligble voters voting for parties despite a lack of conviction. Emergence is a key term here, since a successful political party in a democracy is expected to win an election because it's policies and candidates best mirror those of the constitutional majority - new political parties should emerge

Answer 2
Without referring back to Mr KFC, let's create a person: Generic A. Generic A has two options: a) start the PP of her dreams, b) don't vote. Let's say that she has no option but to avoid option a) and prefers to focus on her immediate needs, despite the awesome jol that is politics. By not voting (yes, I said it) she is not participating in elections and avoids adding to the confidence-rot which mars today's government. Now imagine this happened earlier on a large scale, say 2003, when instead of 58% of eligibles exercising the right to vote, the figure was, say 45%. I would think that the next election, 2009, would have delivered a better stratification of parties, more choice and, likely, better performance from the ANC in lieu of a complete fracture. It's a classic example of a bubble created by misallocated resources (votes).

If this logic is beyond Mr KFC and if my "Do not vote" suggestion makes your muscles twitch, you need a change that is going to enfranchise the people beyond class, beyond race and solve problems. I say, put the academics and bureaucrats in power who will guide the country which could easily achieved through agile central planning. And when the South Africa that is ready to make it's own choices emerges, maybe competition for governance/power can be reintroduced (yes, you read that correctly).

Answer 3
I might be making some very unpopular deductions and I will be the first to admit that I am partisan to central planning. Mr KC points out to me what a drag democracy has been on the country. I would like to point out the ANC's rule since 94 and the stability that has come from it has to be thanked for the great success achieved thus far, sure, but the Tripartite Alliance has been a significant reason for these success, too - not to forget that many supporters were SACP or COSATU, first. The political dominance delivered by the alliance, by de facto, achieved many of the goals of central planning, anyway. Where I am, the elephant in the room is: why reintroduce mercantile competition for governance? When Juju said "nationalise", why did the country not reject in unison? Like they would in western democracy? oh wait, this is not a western industrialised vertically integrated economy. I really do not know which is more idealistic: recreating the enfranchisement delivered by chinese, khazak and vietnamese-style socialism, or western democracy and the representation that comes with it. How does this relate to Mr KC's statement? Only a realist will acknowledge that his best option is not to vote in the hope that as many other South Africans who have been making the same mistake since 1999 do the same and end the confidence-induced-rot that many say the ANC is. And that means Mr KC will have to wait for 'market forces'.

Answer 4
Mr KC's only option will be to not vote - if he votes, government will only get worse. But, I think we'd agree, that the 58% turnout in the 2004 election was the harbringer of dysfunctional government. In effect, the market for governance (and that's what I think western democracy delivers) is broken. almost like this is not a vertically integrated western country or something?? Mr KC's no vote option should entice 'market forces' to deliver a party to his taste, but because of the deep fractures dividing the needs of people (along incomes, to say mention the most urgent) this minority party is less likely to deliver any results than even the slim chance it has of gaining any influence at all through election. Mr KC's vote is marginal (note: I did not say worthless, but I said it). Collectivism and central planning in the same vein as China, Kazakhstan, Vietnam will deliver

Answer 5
More it's shortcomings, I felt. And Occam's solution would be a multi-tier government that accommodated for each 'class', much like layering the various provincial governments one above the other but on a national level.

Am I the only one that feels like democracy has been nothing but a drag on South Africa? This is a de facto single-party state and much that has been achieved (and we have quite a lot be proud of) could have been done through central planning. I say Mr KC is in the wilderness because he is unwilling to take his other options to a) not vote, or b) start his own political party. "Rationally so", you might think. Well, then drink the kool aid and let the pen lands where it wants. But Mr KC, as middle class and lonely as he is, has decided to voice his opinion and we have now heard him. I say, we have a fantastic education system in this country that produces the right skills to carry out central planning, reduce the income variance and bring the country to levels closer to that full employment. Why is that not the priority? Why does the SACP (one third of the Tripartite Alliance) sit back in the face of a brewing COSATU split and declining ANC popularity without distributing their manifesto?

I am not scared of collectivism. What I am scared of is a defunct autocratic government elected by less than 58% of eligible people, as was the case in 2004.

I am partisan, I know. But please, watch the links below and think twice about entertaining political discussion, because you benefited from the status quo. Proof? You are reading this. Am I advocating that you should share what you have? Or lose what you have? Please, simply release the agents of change.